Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Difference between RE and UV Topcon
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 8:29 am    Post subject: Difference between RE and UV Topcon Reply with quote

I'm rather new to Topcon lenses. I have found a few on an online local secondhand market place.
There seem to be two kinds of topcon lenses. One with UV and others with RE.
The UV ones seem to be offered more frequent. What is the difference. Any optical quality differences ? Other Mount ?....
Wich ones are the ones to go after ? It must be adaptable to Fuji X-E1, Nex or M43.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The RE Topcors have the Exakta mount and are adaptable. The UV Topcors are completely different, they have a proprietary mount and fitted a range of leaf shutter SLRs. They have no aperture rings and no adapters are available. The UVs were budget lenses, not upto the superlative standard of the REs.

So in short, collect REs, ignore UVs.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The RE Topcors have the Exakta mount and are adaptable. The UV Topcors are completely different, they have a proprietary mount and fitted a range of leaf shutter SLRs. They have no aperture rings and no adapters are available. The UVs were budget lenses, not upto the superlative standard of the REs.

So in short, collect REs, ignore UVs.

Thank you for the very clear answer !


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you have NEX and have a set of these lenses, you may consider this adapter Click here to see on Ebay.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

calvin83 wrote:
If you have NEX and have a set of these lenses, you may consider this adapter Click here to see on Ebay.

Thx, but that is for the UV lensens, which are inferior. I'd rather go for the RE lenses.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

asterinex wrote:
calvin83 wrote:
If you have NEX and have a set of these lenses, you may consider this adapter Click here to see on Ebay.

Thx, but that is for the UV lensens, which are inferior. I'd rather go for the RE lenses.


Read your initial question, Calvin answered very properly and made a helpful comment about a rare adapter.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another (not so helpful ) solution is to get an UV to RE adapter ( made by Topcon and pretty rare ) and then stack with with Exakta to camera adapter. The trouble is, not so easy to find the UV to RE adapter, bought one years ago without knowing the use of it, until one day...


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cambug wrote:
Another (not so helpful ) solution is to get an UV to RE adapter ( made by Topcon and pretty rare ) and then stack with with Exakta to camera adapter. The trouble is, not so easy to find the UV to RE adapter, bought one years ago without knowing the use of it, until one day...

Thx fellows , I just bought 2 RE lenses8). See http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1339889.html#1339889


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

asterinex wrote:
Thx, but that is for the UV lensens, which are inferior. I'd rather go for the RE lenses.


After comparison UV Topcor 28mm f4 vs. Zeiss Distagon 28mm f2.8 , I doubt that image quality from UV Topcor lenses are inferior.
That's why I wonder if you can judge Image Quality without any comparison/seen between UV lenses and RE Topcor Lenses.

Best regards


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

convert1 wrote:
asterinex wrote:
Thx, but that is for the UV lensens, which are inferior. I'd rather go for the RE lenses.


After comparison UV Topcor 28mm f4 vs. Zeiss Distagon 28mm f2.8 , I doubt that image quality from UV Topcor lenses are inferior.
That's why I wonder if you can judge Image Quality without any comparison/seen between UV lenses and RE Topcor Lenses.

Best regards

No , I don't know.
I went further on the opinion of iangreenhalgh1 (2nd post in this thread). He said that the RE's are better.
I just believed him. Sorry Embarassed


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I`m not sure that these lenses are budget lenses. I bought few of them with the respective cam. These lenses are really of very good make and styling.

Below few samples:

http://forum.mflenses.com/topcon-unirex-and-topcor-f4-28mm-t24624,highlight,%2Btopcon.html
http://forum.mflenses.com/topcor-uv-lenses-t23885,highlight,%2Btopcor.html
http://forum.mflenses.com/topcor-4-200-t20343,highlight,%2Btopcor.html

Wink


PostPosted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Easy to you Rolf, you makes any lens to GOLD. Nice to see how a good photographer can save an orphan lens reputation Smile


PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Camera:35 reviews of several UV Topcors showed a lot less line pairs per mm than the RE Auto-Topcors.

The UV lens designs had to work through the rather tiny (00 size?) leaf shutter in the matching cameras. Big compromise, biggest hit was lens speed. (The Exakta mount is already "too small", and the UV mount is worse in that respect.)


PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How much worse did the uv topcors test? Usually manufacturers make cuts in mechanics and build over glass. It’s all speculation but I would think the uv topcor glass should be good but prices low as they are difficult to adapt and therefore limited market. Even then this would be 1960s to 1970s budget which compared to modern lenses would be premium. The day a adapter becomes readily available I think the prices will rise.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There have been threads by people on the UV lenses, and while not quite as good as the RE they are still quite good. Since adapter issues exist they can be purchased quite inexpensively. I personally don't have any (yet!). If I had an adapter I would not hesitate to try them.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cbass wrote:
How much worse did the uv topcors test? Usually manufacturers make cuts in mechanics and build over glass. It’s all speculation but I would think the uv topcor glass should be good but prices low as they are difficult to adapt and therefore limited market. Even then this would be 1960s to 1970s budget which compared to modern lenses would be premium. The day a adapter becomes readily available I think the prices will rise.


Some UV lenses are quite good. I've tested eg. both UV and RE versions of the 100 and 135 mm lenses here:

forum.mflenses.com/comparison-of-topcor-135mm-re-and-uv-lenses-t77370.html
forum.mflenses.com/uv-topcor-100mm-f4-on-aps-c-t72494.html

I would say that UV lenses are more than usable, particularly if their prices are part of the consideration. I've tested the 28, 35, 53, 100, 135 and 200 mm UV lenses. The links can be found in the 135 mm thread.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2019 1:52 pm    Post subject: UV to M42 adapter Reply with quote

I have made several Topcor UV to M42 adapters that are made from the front portion of a UV Topcon camera lens mount. The only requirement that might be beyond most user's capabilities is the ability to do a little metal lathe work on the adapter parts. I took a stock "something smaller in diameter" to M42 adapter (~$6 on ebay) and turned down the inside a bit to fit the part that comes off of the camera. It works very well with a M42 Chinese helicoid mounted on my Nikon Z6. I simply super glue the stock M42 adapter onto the back of the aperture control ring I removed from the Topcon UV Camera. I could have used an epoxy, but with a snug fitting M42 to camera lens mount, the glue should be just fine. The cameras are very reasonably priced (like $20 or so including shipping). The piece from the camera unscrews from the front, so it comes off easily. You have a couple of options with the adapter. If you take the first two removable plates off of the lens mount on the camera and keep them together, you have the proper diameter opening and depth for any of the UV lenses. If you use just the first removable plate (has the aperture ring on it) only and glue the M42 adapter to that single plate, you will probably need to bore out the inside of the M42 adapter to allow the larger focal length UV lenses to slide past the inside diameter. The photos could be better, but here you go. Each one is a little bit different. The middle one needs to have the center of the M42 bored out to work with the 100mm f/4.

#1


#2


#3


Last edited by kpinkert on Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:07 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2019 1:52 pm    Post subject: Re: UV to M42 adapter Reply with quote

kpinkert wrote:
I have made several Topcor UV to M42 adapters that are made from the front portion of a UV Topcon camera lens mount. The only requirement that might be beyond most user's capabilities is the ability to do a little metal lathe work on the adapter parts. I took a stock "something smaller in diameter" to M42 adapter (~$6 on ebay) and turned down the inside a bit to fit the part that comes off of the camera. It works very well with a M42 Chinese helicoid mounted on my Nikon Z6. I simply super glue the stock M42 adapter onto the back of the aperture control ring I removed from the Topcon UV Camera. I could have used an epoxy, but with a snug fitting M42 to camera lens mount, the glue should be just fine. The cameras are very reasonably priced (like $20 or so including shipping). The piece from the camera unscrews from the front, so it comes off easily. You have a couple of options with the adapter. If you take the first two removable plates off of the lens mount on the camera and keep them together, you have the proper diameter opening and depth for any of the UV lenses. If you use just the first removable plate (has the aperture ring on it) only and glue the M42 adapter to that single plate, you will probably need to bore out the inside of the M42 adapter to allow the larger focal length UV lenses to slide past the inside diameter. The photos could be better, but here you go. Each one is a little bit different. The middle one needs to have the center of the M42 bored out to work with the 100mm f/4.

#1


#2


#3

[/img]


PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Honestly, I wish Topcon had skipped making the UV series and put that effort into a replacement mount for their Exakta based mount, I think they would have had an easier time designing lenses and would have been awesome, something like Minolta SR... Sigh.

Here's a nice post:

http://forum.mflenses.com/uv-topcor-35mm-f3-5-lens-t77352.html#1494650

TrueLoveOne wrote:
Topcor UV adapter for NEX system:
UV Topcor lenses and NEX adapter by René Maly, on Flickr

I bought it from a guy who makes them at home, he's in the US. I found him through ebay. Can't find his link at the moment.....

Some samples from 3 UV Topcor lenses below, some more in my flickr gallery!

The 35mm is a very nice lens, surprised me a lot!

Snowwhite by René Maly, on Flickr

The 53mm f/2.0 wide open, unprocessed picture:

UV Topcor 2/53 by René Maly, on Flickr

And the 135mm f/4:

Run to you! by René Maly, on Flickr


PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:11 pm    Post subject: Mirrorless lens adapter ideas Reply with quote

When I had the older F/AI mount Nikon digital cameras, I was somewhat limited to what other brand/camera lenses where available because of the focal plane distances. Pentax 6x7 and Pentacon 6, Sonnar were some of the only options, unless I wanted to use an optical adapter (not!). When I got the Z mount Nikon 6 mirrorless, all of a sudden the wide world of just about every lens ever made became available. So I began to get a few adapters off of ebay that went from said lens make to Nikon Z. There are tons available. Then I became interested in the projector lenses (Colorplan, Schnieder, ISCO). These required a helicoid adaption of some sort. I jumped onto the M65, M52 and M42 helicoids in various ranges. What I love about the helicoids as compared to the "brand x to Nikon Z" adapters is that I get a macro/bellows function from the helicoid in addition to the normal lens focusing ranges.

With the helicoid, you still need some sort of lens to helicoid adapter. Fortunately, there are multiple options, one of them being the ability to purchase cheap reverse lens adapters for most camera lens brands and this will often give you an adapter that fits on the lens' bayonet that then allows you to screw in a lens filter. Or in my case, machine it a bit and stick on a M42/M52/M64 threaded adapter. There are other options as well. There is a great source of adapters made just for people who want to use all of these old lenses on their newer camera.

https://www.rafcamera.com/


PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

UV Topcor lenses are capable of very good performance, but unless you have a bunch of them already or are able to get a bunch of them cheap and want a collection I am not sure they are worth the effort. You either have to buy an adapter which go for around $60 from rare adapters or build one. The UV topcors are slower with longer MFD compared to the RE Auto Topcors. You can also pick up a descent amount of the RE Topcors for not that much money like the 58 1.8 and 135 3.5. The 35 is more expensive, but not terrible. So unless you want the 28 or 100 which you can get another brand lens in that focal length which is faster it doesn't make much sense.